Doesn't sound like there was any incentive to get the answer right, so why would anyone bother fact checking AI answers. These marketing researchers are basically trying to rebrand path of least resistance to be a new thing?
>These marketing researchers are basically trying to rebrand path of least resistance to be a new thing?
Or they're trying to show how the "path of least resistance" applies to AI use, but you took the path of least resistance and made an uncharitable interpretation of their paper :)
Not really, the same study could be done with giving people a calculator to do long division. How much participants bother to check the work is a function of 1) their expectations for how accurate the tool is 2) how much time they are afforded 3) what the upside of additional accuracy is. Just because they largely default to accepting the answers at face value doesn't mean they are experiencing "cognitive surrender", and doesn't mean calculators are some 4th system of thinking.
On brand for Wharton I guess.